From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Liberals Should Read the HHS Review of Pediatric aGender AffirmingA Care
| Opinion

'NEWSWEEK u aGender affirmingA healthcare is killing children.'
'aScience of transgender healthcare is based on lies.A'

<https://www.newsweek.com/liberals-should-read-the-hhs-review-of- pediatric-gender-affirming-care-opinion-11273400>

'he Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently published
Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. Given current widespread distrust of HHS, especially regarding vaccines, we knew this review, which we co-authored, would be met with skepticism. So, it is worth noting that we, along with most of the other authors, are liberals.

While everyone should be concerned when vulnerable populations do not
receive appropriate medical care, those of us on the left side of the political spectrum need to pay special attention. This is because many of
the organizations and individuals we trust have gotten this issue wrong.

LetAs start with a bit of medical history.


Exterior view of the headquarters of FDA and HHS. (Getty Images)
The approach to pediatric gender distress currently favored in the U.S.,
which involves the provision of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones sometimes followed by surgery, was rapidly adopted internationally
largely on the basis of a Dutch experiment comprised of just 70
adolescents who had been gender nonconforming since early childhood. The
vast majority of these patients (62 out of 70) reported being exclusively same-sex attracted (gay).

During the study, a patient died of surgical complications due to having
been given puberty blockers years earlier; some developed diabetes and
were excluded from final data analysis; others were lost to follow up.
The remaining 55 patients underwent surgical transition upon reaching
legal adulthood. All were rendered sterile. In short, the medical
practice now known euphemistically as pediatric "gender affirming care"
is based on methodologically weak research that sterilized a group of gay
or bisexual youth and left one of them dead.

Since then, thousands of well-meaning parents have been led to believe
that medicalization is necessary for their childrenAs well-being. What
they may not know is that some leading clinician-researchers have buried unfavorable research and have minimized concerning findings (including completed suicides in minors started on hormones).

In 2021, a prominent clinician told the media and other clinicians that
her male patients who were puberty-blocked early never developed the
ability to experience sexual pleasure. A year later, her organization,
the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, released
guidelines that recommend early use of puberty blockers (and which
removed age limitsueven for most surgeriesudue to political pressure).
The risk of lifelong sexual dysfunction was left unmentioned.

This should be concerning to anyone who cares about protecting vulnerable populations. As the HHS review observes, oGiven the medical professionAs history of pathologizing and medicalizing same-sex attraction, serious justice-related concerns are raised by the overrepresentation of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual adolescents among patients receiving unproven interventions that adversely impact fertility and sexual function.o

While it may sound jarring to readers who have, reasonably, deferred to
U.S. medical societies and civil rights advocacy groups on this issue,
there is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the ogender affirmingo
model for youth. Readers may also be surprised to learn that the first countries to restrict these practices were politically progressive
Finland and Sweden, whose socialized health care systems are widely
admired. It was these Scandinavian social democraciesunot U.S. red
statesuthat were first to conduct systematic reviews and conclude there
is no reliable evidence supporting pediatric medical transition. Finland sharply restricted the practice in 2020, followed by Sweden in 2022. The
U.K. was next, and other nations are pulling back, too.

The HHS reviewAs evidence analysis arrives at the same conclusion
regarding the sorry state of the evidence. Weighing the purported
benefits against the risks (which include not only infertility and sexual dysfunction but also decreased bone density, delayed cognitive
development and inability to breastfeed after mastectomy) the review
concludes that the harms of pediatric medical transition far outweigh the unproven mental health benefits.

Instead of medicalization, minors with serious gender-related discomfort should get less risky talk therapy and social support, not to force them
to be gender-conforming, but to help manage distress. Kids should be
supported in their identity exploration and self-expression and supported
as they navigate their social lives. For minors convinced they want
permanent bodily changes, therapists can be there to help them cope with
the frustration of delaying permanent interventions until they are
physically and psychologically mature enough to make such decisions as
adults. Research suggests that for many minors with gender-related
distress, this discomfort will resolve during the course of normal
adolescent development.

While recent polling shows that a majority of Democratic voters oppose pediatric medical transition, the issue remains intensely polarized among politicians and policymakers. Conservatives and liberals alike can agree
that all people, and especially children, deserve ethical, evidence-based care. We recognize that liberals distrust anything coming from the
current administration, but we hope they will take the time to read this review and see that it puts science first.'

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2